BRB Boom 36: 3rd Person Substance Abuse

It’s time, once again, to put boom in your boom and listen to BRB Boom. This week, Smelly Pirate and Yoshifett nerd out the guns, past brackets, Sony’s upcoming announcement, talking on the phone, converting gamers from Halo 4 and other topics that might affect today’s gamer.

Please be sure to subscribe to the BRB Boom feed on iTunes or RSS. If you insist, you can always just download the mp3. If you are currently using a computer with iTunes on it, would you mind heading over there and leaving some feedback?

Tags: , , , ,

Comments

  1. TardyMoments

    Crochet and Clank? Oh wait not gaming related sad

  2. zombiesauerkraut

    Image Enlarger

     

    I don’t know why I came up with this. Iit just rolls off the tongue nicely :)

    Great show, despite Dogsdie being injured. Cheers!

     

  3. Yoshifett, I am going to get right to the heart of this most important gaming related topic and suggest “Ole Crochet” – I know that doesn’t fulfil man of your criteria, but I just liked the sound of it. My, perhaps more suitable suggestion would be “Those That Can’t Do, Crochet” Maybe more obviously a quote with the comma, but may look better without hmmm And the original quote said “he”, have seen it written as “those” but may be better off as “They” – You are probably in a better position to judge than I thumb

  4. TardyMoments

    Ho’chet?

  5. TardyMoments

    Or what about Prochet?

  6. ‘General Pin-Crochet’?

  7. JLV

    Every time Boom comes up in my feed I get so happy.

     

    This show reminded me of the other one with just Yoshi and Smelly, way back in the brown days.

     

    Just as disorganized, just as perfect.

     

    I love you.

  8. Bud284

    How about crochet and tubs?

  9. Badhaggis

    Just on a bit more of a serious point, you don’t need to have fired a gun in order to have an opinion upon gun control.

    That would be a bit like demanding that someone use drugs before talking about drug control, or have fought in a war in order to have an opinion on pacifism.

  10. MaDCurrent

    Common Crochet Standards?

  11. DeanBiddler

    Badhaggis said
    Just on a bit more of a serious point, you don’t need to have fired a gun in order to have an opinion upon gun control.

    That would be a bit like demanding that someone use drugs before talking about drug control, or have fought in a war in order to have an opinion on pacifism.

    You absolutely need to have taken drugs in order to talk which drugs need to be controlled with regards to ones that are not physically addictive. And even with the ones that are, most of them are socially permissible. Take care not to stigmatize the unknown needlessly.

     

  12. DeanBiddler said

    Badhaggis said
    Just on a bit more of a serious point, you don’t need to have fired a gun in order to have an opinion upon gun control.

    That would be a bit like demanding that someone use drugs before talking about drug control, or have fought in a war in order to have an opinion on pacifism.

    You absolutely need to have taken drugs in order to talk which drugs need to be controlled with regards to ones that are not physically addictive. And even with the ones that are, most of them are socially permissible. Take care not to stigmatize the unknown needlessly.

     

    ?

    You do not need to have taken drugs in order to talk about drug control. I have never used marijuana but I still support its decriminalisation, not based on personal experience but on the multitude of scientific papers which tell us it is generally safer than alcohol and tobacco, the crippling effect locking up non-violent offenders is having on society and of course, the ability to use its sale legally to both help the economy in taxes and severely dent criminal organisation’s funds.

    Anyway, video games…

  13. Bud284

    How about Devil May Crochet or has someone said that already? Ho’chet is genious though.

  14. BilboTeabaggins

    As a Englishman working towards his firearms license I have one thing to say on America’s gun laws, DAMN AMERICA, YOU SCARY!

    On the crochet thing, Crochety Old Teachers? Idk… xD Maybe Crochet-Bay?

    Either way, this was a beautiful beautiful mess. Though who’s sending the assassin’s after the show hosts?

  15. BilboTeabaggins said
    As a Englishman working towards his firearms license I have one thing to say on America’s gun laws, DAMN AMERICA, YOU SCARY!

    On the crochet thing, Crochety Old Teachers? Idk… xD Maybe Crochet-Bay?

    Either way, this was a beautiful beautiful mess. Though who’s sending the assassin’s after the show hosts?

     

    Wait, you guys have to be licensed to have a firearm?! Stupid Brits, it’s no wonder you lost WWII.

    ‘Murica!

  16. Badhaggis

    You have to have a licence, comprehensive background check, good reason for having one ( being in a gun-club or a farmer) have a metal cupboard that’s bolted to the wall, with 2 different locks and that’s where any firearms you own ( you can have shotguns and hunting rifles, nothing else really) are kept.

     

    It has been nearly 20 years since a school massacre over here though, and gun crime is very very low.

    ….

    And cough cough, Battle of Britain, Africa Campaign, Burma Campaign cough cough.

     

    Although TBH, it was the soviets wot won it

     

     

  17. zombiesauerkraut

    Not to open up that can of worms, but:

    Surprise, surprise; lock up all the guns, and people stop dying because of guns. It works in theory AND in practice, I love that!

  18. BilboTeabaggins

    smelly pirate said

    Wait, you guys have to be licensed to have a firearm?! Stupid Brits, it’s no wonder you lost WWII.

    ‘Murica!

    Well trolled good sir, well trolled. I postulate that no one really won World War II.

    But isn’t this some kind of video games podcast? Aren’t there some video games we can discuss?

  19. frawlzfans

    BilboTeabaggins said

    smelly pirate said

    Wait, you guys have to be licensed to have a firearm?! Stupid Brits, it’s no wonder you lost WWII.

    ‘Murica!

    Well trolled good sir, well trolled. I postulate that no one really won World War II.

    But isn’t this some kind of video games podcast? Aren’t there some video games we can discuss?

    Dont care if Smelly is trolling of course im going to take the bait of course we won World War II as well as World War 1 and I would postulate the biggest winners of the war, which there were winners, were America. Apart from this great show guys thumb “I will always choose a lazy person to do a difficult job, because he will find an easy way to do it”

  20. zombiesauerkraut

    Image Enlarger

     

    The allies won WWII fair and square (that is, fair and square with the help of a couple of A-bombs). Though a side suffers heavy casualties, its status of “victor” should not be diminished. To put it in perspective, a win is when the world is saved from the jaws of fascism, a loss is when we’re all forced to speak German to each other (trust me; I speak German).

  21. DeanBiddler

    A-bombs, as tragic as they were, prevented the invasion of the island of Japan.

  22. frawlzfans

    DeanBiddler said
    A-bombs, as tragic as they were, prevented the invasion of the island of Japan.

    No, this is a common misconception and is not true at all, its a excuse in order to cleanse the conscious of the American people and government. This is a blatant war crime and one of the first acts of state terrorism and not the last act of American state terrorism and before someone goes frawlzfans you hate America no, Britain bombed Dresden another war crime and act of terrorism. If you look at the Fourth Geneva Convention set out to after the Second World War every American President since the Second World War has broke it but I digress.

    The United States Strategic Bombing Survey was a board of experts assembled to produce an impartial assessment of the effects of Anglo-American strategic bombing and I quote “”There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan’s unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan’s disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion“.

    Also Eisenhower states in his memoirs “In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.” 

    The last two quotes

    “The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.” Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

    “The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons… The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.” Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.

    Now we have established  the bombing was not necessary I ask why no one was charged with war crimes? No one was even punished, and you lot argue with me that Iran shouldn’t have nuclear weapons when America dropped two, killed thousands, for no reason. If it wasn’t for the Second World War, the $ wouldn’t be the worlds most important currency and America wouldn’t be the superpower it is today. 

  23. frawlzfans said
    you lot argue with me that Iran shouldn’t have nuclear weapons when America dropped two, killed thousands, for no reason.

    Iran should not have nuclear weapons. No country should have nuclear weapons.

    Unfortunately, you can’t uninvent them. So all we can do is stop more countries and groups getting them, and reducing the number of those that already exist towards 0.

  24. frawlzfans

    Diarmuid said

    frawlzfans said
    you lot argue with me that Iran shouldn’t have nuclear weapons when America dropped two, killed thousands, for no reason.

    Iran should not have nuclear weapons. No country should have nuclear weapons.

    Unfortunately, you can’t uninvent them. So all we can do is stop more countries and groups getting them, and reducing the number of those that already exist towards 0.

    Disagree as the countries who already have them will never give them up, look at discussing gun control in America no chance they’ll give up nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons do more for peace than anything else for example the west would have invaded North Korea by now if it wasn’t for their nuclear weapons, we wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq if they could defend themselves. This is a key point to the reason Iran wants and should have nuclear weapons not to attack America but to stop America invading. Iran is bordered by Saudi Arabia a proxy American state, Iraq full of American troops, Turkey another proxy American state, Afghanistan full of American troops and Pakistan a historical American ally but not really anymore and not far from Israel. Would you not feel scared if you were Iran, I would. 

  25. zombiesauerkraut

    If Iran’s afraid of all this pseudo America surrounding it, it’s because they know they have an anti-Semitic, human rights violating dictator for a leader. Whether these America hating nations literally “trust” the US and its allies with nuclear weapons or not, it is a fact that the atom bomb has only been used against aggressors on TWO occasions in history, and I do not foresee the west ever using it again. Frankly, the world is not equal and not everyone should have access to these horrific weapons. When these countries stop torturing and slaughtering their own civilians, harboring terrorists and openly calling for the destruction of other nations, only then can we BEGIN to consider them fit for the responsibility that comes with wielding a weapon that may never be used.

  26. frawlzfans said
    Disagree as the countries who already have them will never give them up, look at discussing gun control in America no chance they’ll give up nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons do more for peace than anything else for example the west would have invaded North Korea by now if it wasn’t for their nuclear weapons, we wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq if they could defend themselves. This is a key point to the reason Iran wants and should have nuclear weapons not to attack America but to stop America invading. Iran is bordered by Saudi Arabia a proxy American state, Iraq full of American troops, Turkey another proxy American state, Afghanistan full of American troops and Pakistan a historical American ally but not really anymore and not far from Israel. Would you not feel scared if you were Iran, I would. 

    Using your gun control analogy, your solution implies that we give everybody guns. In that case, I would feel scared being anyone.

  27. frawlzfans

    Diarmuid said

    frawlzfans said
    Disagree as the countries who already have them will never give them up, look at discussing gun control in America no chance they’ll give up nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons do more for peace than anything else for example the west would have invaded North Korea by now if it wasn’t for their nuclear weapons, we wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq if they could defend themselves. This is a key point to the reason Iran wants and should have nuclear weapons not to attack America but to stop America invading. Iran is bordered by Saudi Arabia a proxy American state, Iraq full of American troops, Turkey another proxy American state, Afghanistan full of American troops and Pakistan a historical American ally but not really anymore and not far from Israel. Would you not feel scared if you were Iran, I would. 

    Using your gun control analogy, your solution implies that we give everybody guns. In that case, I would feel scared being anyone.

     

    Not really there’s a massive difference between owning and using guns to owning and using nuclear weapons. 

  28. frawlzfans

    zombiesauerkraut said
    If Iran’s afraid of all this pseudo America surrounding it, it’s because they know they have an anti-Semitic, human rights violating dictator for a leader. Whether these America hating nations literally “trust” the US and its allies with nuclear weapons or not, it is a fact that the atom bomb has only been used against aggressors on TWO occasions in history, and I do not foresee the west ever using it again. Frankly, the world is not equal and not everyone should have access to these horrific weapons. When these countries stop torturing and slaughtering their own civilians, harboring terrorists and openly calling for the destruction of other nations, only then can we BEGIN to consider them fit for the responsibility that comes with wielding a weapon that may never be used.

    America has a human rights violating leader who kills both American and Non American citizens without trial along with torturing people in guantanamo yet no has invaded America maybe its because they are the worlds number one military superpower, nothing more than hypocritical. Harboring terrorists, well bin Laden was found in Pakistan not Iran. September 13th 2001 the FBI put members of the Bin Laden family on a private yet along with Saudi’s back to Saudi Arabia because the hijackers were Saudi but of course we didnt invade Saudi Arabia because they have over a trillion dollars  in American banks. My point is its hypocritical and you talk of responsibility would you give someone whos shot someone a gun? no, yet the country that has used nuclear weapons has the most of them.    

  29. frawlzfans said
    Not really there’s a massive difference between owning and using guns to owning and using nuclear weapons. 

    The only difference is scale IMO.

  30. zombiesauerkraut

    @ frawlzfans I’m confused…are you saying that you are for or against gun control. And are you also saying, that just because the people who have refrained from using nukes for 60 years won’t get rid of theirs, that makes it a good idea to give nukes to the countries that, well, just to be fair let’s say have a 50/50 chance of using them? The guy who says “we hate Israel, Israel is an abomination, let the Muslim world unite and wipe their country and race off the face of the earth”, you want to give that guy a nuke???

  31. frawlzfans

    zombiesauerkraut said
    @ frawlzfans I’m confused…are you saying that you are for or against gun control. And are you also saying, that just because the people who have refrained from using nukes for 60 years won’t get rid of theirs, that makes it a good idea to give nukes to the countries that, well, just to be fair let’s say have a 50/50 chance of using them? The guy who says “we hate Israel, Israel is an abomination, let the Muslim world unite and wipe their country and race off the face of the earth”, you want to give that guy a nuke???

    Im against gun control but for nuclear weapons. America today and moving into the future isnt the worlds economic superpower anymore the BRIC countries are catching up. So all they have left is being a military superpower thus America will never give up their nuclear weapons. Israel also says we hate Palestine and Iran yet America gives them weapons admittedly not nuclear. Yes Ahmadinejad is a nutter but he’s not stupid, do you really think he’d nuke Israel or attempt America knowing full well America would wipe them off the earth before the missiles have launched? North Korea could have attacked the South but they haven’t even though their leaders are far more insane. Im for peace, I hate war, conflict, violence. 

  32. zombiesauerkraut

    “America has a human rights violating leader who kills both American and Non American citizens without trial”. I question your sources and suggest that we base our arguments on facts in order to achieve the highest level of productivity during this conversation. In case you hadn’t noticed, Bin Laden is not the only terrorist out there. Iran has been accused of harboring terrorists on countless occasions, and while I expect you to default to the “that’s what Uncle Sam wants you to think” classic….come on, who are we kiddin’ here?

    And you keep using the word “hypocritical”, which suggests you have a moral objection to us having nukes, and Iran  and other dangerous countries not. Is it FAIR that Iran can’t have nukes while the west can? Does America DESERVE the nukes it has? Isn’t it HYPOCRITICAL that America used nukes twice, but won’t let anyone else have them because they’re afraid of them using nukes? Who gives a f**k?! The world is absolutely a safer place as long as Iran does not have nuclear weapons, period! Safer for the US, safer for Iran’s neighbors, AND safer for Iran. It is inconceivable that anyone would argue otherwise, and I’m starting to think this is just one big troll.

  33. frawlzfans

    zombiesauerkraut said
    “America has a human rights violating leader who kills both American and Non American citizens without trial”. I question your sources and suggest that we base our arguments on facts in order to achieve the highest level of productivity during this conversation. In case you hadn’t noticed, Bin Laden is not the only terrorist out there. Iran has been accused of harboring terrorists on countless occasions, and while I expect you to default to the “that’s what Uncle Sam wants you to think” classic….come on, who are we kiddin’ here?

    And you keep using the word “hypocritical”, which suggests you have a moral objection to us having nukes, and Iran  and other dangerous countries not. Is it FAIR that Iran can’t have nukes while the west can? Does America DESERVE the nukes it has? Isn’t it HYPOCRITICAL that America used nukes twice, but won’t let anyone else have them because they’re afraid of them using nukes? Who gives a f**k?! The world is absolutely a safer place as long as Iran does not have nuclear weapons, period! Safer for the US, safer for Iran’s neighbors, AND safer for Iran. It is inconceivable that anyone would argue otherwise, and I’m starting to think this is just one big troll.

    It is fact lol maybe you should use google before arguing or read books, google Anwar al-Awlaki an American citizen killed without trial by a drone strike. Do a bit of research about drone strikes, yes they kill terrorists even though without trial but they kill innocent people too. He’s not white and not called Tommy but he’s still American. Even the murderers of Lincoln had a trial I find it disturbing that people can be killed without trial its a slippery slope. No I use hypocritical because it is, America used nukes even though in a earlier post I proved beyond doubt they didnt need to, America invades more counties than anyone else yet America decides Iran cannot have any even though Iran hasn’t used them in the past. Hypocritical. Im not trolling I read books by Authors such as Noam Chomsky, Kenneth Waltz (who argues nuclear weapons are good) and even the Washington Post agrees with my point. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comm…..terrence 

     

     

     

  34. frawlzfans
  35. zombiesauerkraut

    I get it, you read books. Your mother must be very proud, because obviously, literacy implies bias-free, deductive genius. When you say our president kills American citizens (plural) without trial, suggesting some level of genocide comparable to my example, you in fact mean American citizen (singular) who was in league with al-Qaeda. Right, a real tragedy . Drone strikes are tools of war, and in war people die. You loose a significant tactical advantage when your very elusive targets are required to stand trial for years on end, not to mention that apprehending said targets to read them their Miranda rights can be quite challenging, hundreds of miles deep in hostile territory. We all agree civilian casualties suck, but sometimes leaving the bad guys alive is just not an option. I don’t pretend to be aware of every top secret assassination carried out by our government as you do, or that I would agree with every decision to assassinate a target, but to compare these fatalities to the crimes committed by Saddam Hussein against his own people is disrespectful. I did, however, enjoy your attempt at elitism. lol “I read books” OMG

  36. Zombellic

     

    Nuclear weapons made WW3 to costly thanks mutually assured destruction and that worked with a small number of nuclear states. What worries me is less stable or religious extremist governments having “nuke buttons”

    Also there is the famous case of the Russian radar operator who saw a glitch that made it appear that the US was striking first. Allegedly he ignored protocal which would have meant he launched back at the US. I take that story with a pinch of salt. But u can see that the they’re good they stopped war argument works right up to the point when the first missile launches.

     

    coincidentally I tweeted “he who shall not be named” a few hours ago. after he made another anti-Obama tweet about How 92% of Pakistians dislike the American government his reply to my question of what would u have had Obama do instead was “it was a joke I couldn’t care less what Pakistanians think.” My reply was you know they have nukes and an unstable government.

     

    Like firearms the more u have in circulation the more likely they will become accessable to those that will be careless/irresponsible with them. 

  37. Zombellic

    Also the argument that the 2 nukes dropped on Japan saved lives works as long as u are only concerned with the lives of your own countrymen. That’s partly understandable but doesn’t change the number of civilians killed by the attacks which is why I disagree with drone attacks. The security of knowing that your own men aren’t at risk (aka vote losers/bad PR) encourages politicians to be more gun-ho.

     

    same goes for the massive bombing of Bagdad and the huge loss civilian life that was largely ignored by western media.

  38. Yoshifett

    There is massive debate among historians as to whether or not dropping the A-bomb on Japan was the correct decision to make. This is not an either/or situation. Very intelligent, well-educated people reasonably disagree on this topic.

  39. Badhaggis

    The Big Red Barrel Nuclear Podcast: Jitterbug, Dave and Jon discuss the impending threat of WMDs and their implications for the everyday gamer. This week the Hosts discuss the proliferation of nuclear energy, its relationship with militant Islam and what that means for global diplomacy.

     

    Yoshifett said 
    There is massive debate among historians as to whether or not dropping the A-bomb on Japan was the correct decision to make. This is not an either/or situation. Very intelligent, well-educated people reasonably disagree on this topic.

    Agreed.

  40. Zombellic

    Badhaggis said
    The Big Red Barrel Nuclear Podcast: Jitterbug, Dave and Jon discuss the impending threat of WMDs and their implications for the everyday gamer. This week the Hosts discuss the proliferation of nuclear energy, its relationship with militant Islam and what that means for global diplomacy.

    I would love to hear that. MAKE IT HAPPEN!

  41. TardyMoments

    As this is now a Bomb orientated topic, how about ‘Blowchet’?

  42. Yoshifett

    Badhaggis said
    The Big Red Barrel Nuclear Podcast: Jitterbug, Dave and Jon discuss the impending threat of WMDs and their implications for the everyday gamer. This week the Hosts discuss the proliferation of nuclear energy, its relationship with militant Islam and what that means for global diplomacy.

     

    Um, I should be on that Podcast. I got the UCLA History degree with which to work.

  43. Zombellic

    Yoshifett said

    Badhaggis said
    The Big Red Barrel Nuclear Podcast: Jitterbug, Dave and Jon discuss the impending threat of WMDs and their implications for the everyday gamer. This week the Hosts discuss the proliferation of nuclear energy, its relationship with militant Islam and what that means for global diplomacy.

     

    Um, I should be on that Podcast. I got the UCLA History degree with which to work.

    Yoshifett, Frawlsfans & Lo.. Sorry he who shall not be named would be great for this show cos u need a conservative troll to help the argument.

  44. Zombellic

    Also WTF Yoshifett posts on the forums now!

     

    Also u told someone with straight edge in their name not to do drugs. Being Straight edge is all about not doing drugs or alcohol to have fun. Kinda like being a Mormon without the whole book of Mormon business.

  45. Badhaggis

    Yoshifett said

    Badhaggis said
    The Big Red Barrel Nuclear Podcast: Jitterbug, Dave and Jon discuss the impending threat of WMDs and their implications for the everyday gamer. This week the Hosts discuss the proliferation of nuclear energy, its relationship with militant Islam and what that means for global diplomacy.

     

    Um, I should be on that Podcast. I got the UCLA History degree with which to work.

     

    Nope, you’re on Big Red Barrel: Cosmos, an intrepid sideways look at the galaxy, the universe and everything (and what this means for the everyday gamer). Other hosts are Frawlz, and Dan.

     

  46. frawlzfans

    zombiesauerkraut said
    I get it, you read books. Your mother must be very proud, because obviously, literacy implies bias-free, deductive genius. When you say our president kills American citizens (plural) without trial, suggesting some level of genocide comparable to my example, you in fact mean American citizen (singular) who was in league with al-Qaeda. Right, a real tragedy . Drone strikes are tools of war, and in war people die. You loose a significant tactical advantage when your very elusive targets are required to stand trial for years on end, not to mention that apprehending said targets to read them their Miranda rights can be quite challenging, hundreds of miles deep in hostile territory. We all agree civilian casualties suck, but sometimes leaving the bad guys alive is just not an option. I don’t pretend to be aware of every top secret assassination carried out by our government as you do, or that I would agree with every decision to assassinate a target, but to compare these fatalities to the crimes committed by Saddam Hussein against his own people is disrespectful. I did, however, enjoy your attempt at elitism. lol “I read books” OMG

    My mother is very proud thanks hahaha and I dont remember suggesting genocide which is a stupid statement to say anyway but whether it be one person or a thousand killing your own citizens without trial which means we dont know how much evidence there is, is worrying, if you dont think it is then you’re worrying. I don’t pretend to be aware of every top secret assassination lol when it was reported by every news agency haha I cant even argue with you. FYI the crimes committed by Saddam with American money and weapons and before you say thats not true its a conspiracy nom nom nom it is. I wasn’t being elitist nice try at deflecting your own lack of knowledge and poor debating skills though, you said my facts were made up, I proved they were not by remarking I read books, you call me elitist. The same argument which led Yoshi to quit Facebook “Im mad because im ignorant and you know things” thumb

  47. zombiesauerkraut

    “When these countries stop torturing and slaughtering their own civilians, harboring terrorists and openly calling for the destruction of other nations, only then can we BEGIN to consider them fit for the responsibility that comes with wielding a weapon that may never be used.” Slaughtering their own civilians obviously refers to horrific acts of genocide such as that of the Kurds at Hussein’s hand. You responded by saying that the US president also kills his own civilians without trial, case and point, Anwar al-Awlaki. I argued that killing one American traitor, in league with al-Quaeda, is not comparable to murdering over 50,000 innocent men, women and children. Again, this comparison is moronic, disrespectful and obviously only serves to fuel an evidently pointless discussion.

    As stated before, it is impossible to put every enemy soldier on trial, that’s not how war works. If you’re assuming to know that these decisions are made lightly by our government without first gathering intel telling them why it is exactly this person who needs to die, aka evidence, then you truly are nothing more than a government hating conspiracy theorist. I am angry at my government for loads of things, but only things of which I’ve seen evidence. No, evidence is not a book of speculations with a catchy title that says Saddam and Bush used to play golf together.

    In a perfect world, communism would work and everybody could be trusted with nukes. But that’s not the world we live in. If I believed your proposal was an actual solution, I would support it. But it is a radical idea, with very unpredictable consequences. There is no way to say for certain that Iran wouldn’t freak out and use their one nuke against our bazillion nukes. There is no way to say for certain that Iran wouldn’t let their newly acquired nuclear capabilities fall into the hands of terrorists. With millions of lives at stake, and so many factors involved, you’d be a self righteous madman to claim to be able to foresee the outcome of so reckless a gamble. This truly is the most bizzare view point I’ve ever witnessed on this forum. I’m out.

  48. Badhaggis

    I suppose my comeback to that is that nobody wants to be nuked, hence MAD ( Mutually Assured Destruction), although nobody having nukes is indefinitely preferable.

  49. zombiesauerkraut

    Badhaggis said
    I suppose my comeback to that is that nobody wants to be nuked, hence MAD ( Mutually Assured Destruction), although nobody having nukes is indefinitely preferable.

    If we could say with 100% certainty, that after we got rid of all our nukes, no other nation would be allowed to obtain nukes in the future, then absolutely, best possible scenario. But it will never happen, nukes are here to stay. MAD should work, but it’s based on the idea that those involved are capable of rational thought, which often times not the case. It only takes one man to decide his entire country is going to become martyrs.

  50. Badhaggis

    Iran is a more rational state than many give it credit for, it’s wrong to characterise it as a pure theocracy, rather it’s more of an illiberal authoritarian democracy in which the military hold the balance of power, not the religious figures. The Republican Guard are a more significant political force than the religious faction, if only because they are better organised and actually have the military muscle to decide who gets to rule. 

     

    If North Korea, Pakistan and Israel have been able to have a Nuclear capability without using it on other nations, I don’t believe that Iran would. Rather it’s an attempt to stop any conventional invasion from being considered (and to a certain degree, who can blame them? Its worked for North Korea, Syria hasn’t been messed around with due to it’s chemical weapons arsenal and if Qaddafi had WMDs I can’t see NATO having been so willing to get involved there).

     

     BTW Salami Tactics

     

     

  51. zombiesauerkraut

    Fair enough, it still sounds extremely dangerous to me. Let’s say for the sake of argument that Iran is not planning on nuking anyone or giving the technology to terrorists. What happens if, after Iran goes nuclear, they invade one of our allies. Now we can’t invade Iran…can we? We would be putting Iran in a situation where it might feel that it needs to defend itself with their new toy. And surely the rest of the world would put pressure on us to lay off, because we would be provoking a nuclear war without even pushing the button. I think if Saddam had nukes, the Gulf War would have been a lot more complicated.

     

    In any case, it seems like you are saying that the world wouldn’t go to hell if Iran got the bomb. But even if you’re right, I don’t see that we’d be solving any urgent current issue by letting them have it, so better to play it safe, right?

    PS Brits are funny, great clip =)

  52. Badhaggis

    I agree, and as I said before I’d rather that there was a nuclear weapon free future, and I certainly don’t want nuclear weapons to become more widespread, I just don’t think that it would actually make much difference, apart from completely ruling out an invasion of Iran by any other nation.

     

    “I think if Saddam had nukes, the Gulf War would have been a lot more complicated.”

     

    I don’t think that either the US or the UK should have got involved in the Gulf War 1.0 or 2.0, but that’s a different argument. Kuwait had been stealing oil from Iraq, and quite frankly, the first one didn’t result in much difference ( we handed back Kuwait to it’s “rightful” dictators, and Iraq stayed with Saddam). Whereas in round 2, we managed to completely mess the country up, even worse that Saddam could ever have done.

  53. Zombellic

    A point that I think most people miss is that just because MAD has worked so far doesn’t always mean it will.  A small number of countries have avoided MAD for a small number of decades.

     

    Make that several dozen counties for 100’s of years and you can’t just assume that MAD will work. A dictator expecting to be treated like Saddam or Gadaffi has nothing to lose or the politicial version of a suicide bomber who believes he has a righteous cause that’s worth the cost can’t be relied on to do what’s needed to avoid MAD.

     

    Like I said before it could only take human or computer error or paranoia (Iran’s statement’s of Zionist conspiracies to the UN comes to mind. Eagles being arrested as spies etc)

    In less careful hands something like yesterday’s exploding meteorite could begin result in a retaliation strike.

     

    of course we can’t change the fact that this can of worms has been opened & the problem isn’t going to go away even if all currently KNOWN nukes are disarmed.

    In the long term we probably need a system like Reagan’s Star Wars to make launching long range nukes pointless and for the sake of peace it would need to be automatic and free of any governments control. Trouble is then the next evolution of missile technology would be a way to bypass/stealth the defense system.

     

    I have no answers and we can’t undo their invention, so we just have to try to make the best of it.

  54. Raj

    You guys realise that Jiminy Glick is nothing more than a fat recycled version of Martin Short’s character “Ed Grimley” from 80’s SNL?

  55. FireMuncher

    Raj said
    You guys realise that Jiminy Glick is nothing more than a fat recycled version of Martin Short’s character “Ed Grimley” from 80’s SNL?

    Your mom’s nothing more than a fat recycled version of Martin Short’s character “Ed Grimley” from 80’s SNL

Leave a Reply

Review: Catastronauts

Rik checks out Catastronauts, a game wearing its Overcooked and FTL influences on its sleeve.

Review: Karuba

Can Karuba deliver on its promise of hidden treasure and adventure for all the family? Indiana Joe explores further in this review.

BRB UK 319: Dan’s an Xbox Thief!

PlayStation pulls out of E3, Dan's nicking games and Tim's allowed to talk about VR? What a weird old episode of BRB UK this is

BRB UK 314: You Love it!

Starlink, WWE 2K19, Warriors Ochori 4, Pixel Ripped 1989, Valkyria Chronicles 4 and Yakuza Kiwami 2… that's a HUGE show!

Human: Fall Flat – PC Multiplayer

No Brakes Games and Curve Digital have announced that Human:...

Comics Inc 04: Here Come The Skrulls

Symbiotes, Skrulls and a baby-faced Samuel L. Jackson… this comic-based podcast show really does have everything!

© Big Red Barrel 2011 - 2019